John Stossel: I left ABC because it sucked

posted at 5:26 pm on April 12, 2012 by Tina Korbe

If you’ve ever worked for a news organization and not liked it, now’s the time to speak up, apparently. First, the Fox News mole fiasco, then the Newt Gingrich-Fox News feud, and, now, John Stossel, saying what I like to read immeasurably more than I cared to read the mole’s uninformative insider accounts:

Stossel left ABC in 2009 after working there for 28 years “because it sucked,” he said.

“They were hostile to these ideas that made us prosperous and I consider so important. They tolerated me for years,” said Stossel, “but by the end they were saying ‘Oh, you’re so predictable Stossel, you want to use libertarian economics all the time.’” …

“I was not offered a job by Fox,” he said. “I went over there and begged ‘Please hire me, I can’t stand it anymore.’”

Stossel’s comments came in an interview with The Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey in which Stossel discussed his new book, “No They Can’t: Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.” In addition to denouncing the creativity-stifling environment fostered by his former employers, he spoke a hard truth to those of us who work in media. “Shallow wins,” he said in the closing quote of the interview.

Stossel, who is known for the clever ways in which he illustrates libertarian economic principles for viewers, acknowledged that economic arguments for or against a policy are often complex. There exists a need, then, to make the moral argument for economic freedom, as, for example, American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks does.

In the meantime, though, Stossel will continue to make the economic arguments at the same network that the mole painted as soul-destroying. Stossel’s tale of proactively pleading with Fox to hire him makes the mole seem even more pathetic. Are we really to believe no liberal news organizations were willing to hire him because he had begrudgingly worked at Fox for a time? He’s telling me they wouldn’t jump at the chance to hire someone so evidently ready to denounce a competitor they hate?

Goes to show we’re all responsible to seek an environment in which we can flourish — and, thankfully, we live in a country that (for now, at least) allows us to do just that.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Stossel and Dennis Miller were the only reasons I watched BOR’s show for as long as I did. Eventually, however, even they weren’t enough to make me stomach Mr. Ego, and I quit watching a few months ago.

John was the only way I’d be caught dead watching 20/20.His segment’s( always toward the end of the show, so you had to sit thru the crap to watch them ),and specials were always worthwhile. I was happy for him, when he left the Dark Side!

Stossel is one of the few journalists out there who actually does what journalists are supposed to do–report on things the way they are, and he probably got tired of ABC because he didn’t fit their cookie-cutter liberal mentality, which is (to their credit) somewhat less liberal than NBC and See-BS.

Stossel’s best report was when he dressed as a beggar, and collected more money from passersby when he begged for a beer than for food.

Stossel is definitely an asset for Fox News, but sometimes I wonder whether conservatives at the alphabet networks should stay where they are, and try to reach the people who watch them. If the honest journalists all go to Fox News, the sheeple just won’t watch Fox News, and won’t be exposed to conservative journalism.

“Libertarian” economics? As if there is more than one kind of valid economics.

I assume they mean the kind of economics that Adam Smith and those evil capitalists “use”. The kind that is based on reality and on human freedom, and that has a track record demonstrating it works stupendously well. Even the Chicoms have adopted some of it.

As opposed to that other kind, the kind Marx preached. The kind that is based on Utopian fantasy, on Big Government knows best, and on restricting human freedom, and that has a track record demonstrating it does not work at all. Even the Chicoms have abandoned much of it.

Are we really to believe no liberal news organizations were willing to hire him because he had begrudgingly worked at Fox for a time?

How young are you? Outside of HA, have you had to do an HR interview?

The answer is YES.

You seem nice, Tina, but man…

…news orgs have hundreds upon hundreds of people as qualified as Muto to choose from. By not leaving on his own accord, and staying for years, it was a signal that he didn’t find it that bad. Otherwise, he had to walk into an interview and trash his current employer, which might garner some laughs, but only guaranteed he wouldn’t be hired because he had a big mouth.

Muto is a sissy and used this mole BS to find a pity hire. Which he will by MSNBC.

Stossel is the only political show my wife will watch, and my teenager loves him – his show makes a great tool for introducing/reenforcing concepts of liberty to counterbalance the leftist influence of High School.

Pretty much.
Libertarians seem to have a blind spot for addictive drugs, but his economics are refreshing.

Count to 10 on April 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Sorry, I can’t let this one go. :)

I live in a very liberal state (well part of it is liberal and they control the gov) and those addictive drugs have led to me being viewed as a mere criminal for wanting cold medicine. Oregon makes you get a prescription for sudafed. Still have drug problems here… funny that. Some things you can’t fix by passing laws. You have to work on it at the social/moral level and by pointing out what those drugs do.

Anyway, I grew up watching Stossel on 20/20 and he’s one of the best reporters out there.

I think Newt just lost me with this from Real Clear Politcs:
“They know I don’t care about their opinions,” he said. “I don’t go to their cocktail parties. I don’t go to their Christmas parties. The only press events I go to are interesting dinners when the wife insists on it, so we’re going to go to the White House Correspondents’ dinner because she wants to. And we’re actually going to go to CNN’s table, not FOX.”

I became a Newt fan because of what he said when he as on FNC. Doesn’t he realize that CNN is just using him and that if he had become our nominee they would attempt to destroy him. sigh

ABC has sucked for years… and the Mouse caves to any pressure group, but is more than willing to pressure Congress to extend copyright forever to protect the Mouse.

I like Stossel well enough, he just needs to remember that Law of Nation precedes Wealth of Nations, and that borders are there for a reason not just for Nations but their economies. You can’t get rid of Law of Nations as man just keeps on creating it over and over again… and when you seek to corrode the Nation in the name of liberty, perhaps it is time to remember that not all liberty is positive and that Nations are created for a reason.

Stossel is definitely an asset for Fox News, but sometimes I wonder whether conservatives at the alphabet networks should stay where they are, and try to reach the people who watch them. If the honest journalists all go to Fox News, the sheeple just won’t watch Fox News, and won’t be exposed to conservative journalism.

Steve Z on April 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Yep. If conservatives like Stossel and Bernie Goldberg who were at the alphabet networks had stayed, perhaps the networks wouldn’t have gone full lefty.

I like Stossel a lot, but I’m not too happy to see all conservatives ghettoized at Fox – that’s no way to reach new audiences with conservative ideas. I am sure Lou Dobbs created far more new conservatives when he was at CNN they he will at FBN. Ditto for Stossel and ABC.

This issue really gets at the schism within the GOP on foreign policy right now.

You pointed to terrorism as one reason that a “defense-only” approach no longer applies anymore. Apparently it never occurred to you that the primary motivation of suicide terrorism is foreign occupation. In 2000 Candidate Bush said he did not think the United States should “nation build or occupy foreign lands” because “they’ll see as arrogant” and telling them what to do. His implication was that our desire to interfere in their politics and lives would lead to further unintended consequences. My point in bringing this up is that your philosophy (or lack thereof), which sounds a lot like Newt Gingrich’s, lacks any wisdom.

Libertarians don’t want to take the FIRST incorrect step. While you mere conservatives will make the first bad step, then ignore that step, and operate as though that mistake was never made from that point forward – and even blaming those subject to our aggressive foreign policy! This is typical. People like me, who have been warning about the side effects of foreign intervention (terrorism) are often called “hate America first” for our desire to stop the terrorism/war cycle from starting. Libertarians, in general, want to pursue paths which reduce government force and foreign policy is a huge part of that.

If we want to make the best decisions for our country we should consider the decision that will defend liberty because our liberty is our ultimate safety. And the best way to defend liberty is to pursue the most limited government possible because it’ll require the least amount of government force. Government force is anathema to individual liberty.

If you can apply these same principles to the welfare state, I wonder why you can’t apply the very same principle to the warfare state? Perhaps you should analyze what you’re missing or not understanding in this debate? Your desire to pervert the word, “defense” is not any different than a progressives desire to pervert the phrase, “the general welfare” in the Constitution.

I think most conservatives are about 80% libertarian. The main difference is that most of use feel that we as the people have the right to define the parameters of society and that it is not tyranny to have some standards and tolerance toward religious beliefs, just as religious people can’t enforce beliefs. I understand Stossel’s points, but some of them don’t change my opinion while some do.

28 years? Good God, Stossel, what took you so long? Sucks worse now that it’s the AllBarakaChannel and its local Chicago affiliate which brought us Doprah sucks just as bad and, like the network, they just can’t drool enough over Obama.

“The Gingrich/Olbermann Report”, in which two giant egos clash for 60 minutes. Critics will use words such as Idiots, imbeciles, troglodytes, ignoramus, fools, or even nincompoops, but still fall short.